Saturday, September 15, 2012

Brandon McCafferty, who said he is a friend of the victim, said while visiting the scene of the shooting Thursday morning that the man had a permit to carry a gun and always had a gun in his possession. He said he had heard that the man had a gun in his possession Wednesday night, and that the officers told him to put the gun down before he was shot.

I wonder if that information will make it into any of the official statistics we keep hearing about, you know the ones that prove how much safer concealed carry guys are than everybody else?

State Rep. Curry Todd is pleading not guilty to drunken driving and gun charges.The
Collierville Republican was arrested in October after failing a
roadside sobriety test. A loaded .38-caliber gun was found stuffed
between the driver's seat and center console. Todd faces charges of
drunken driving, possession of a firearm while under the influence and
violating the state's implied consent law for refusing a breath
alcohol test.Todd
was a main sponsor of a state law allowing handgun carry permit holders
to bring firearms into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. It's
unclear where Todd was coming from at the time of his arrest.

Our gun-rights friends keep telling us how the existing laws are being enforced and that they are sufficient. Do you think this menace to himself and others has been disarmed? Do you think law enforcement went to his house to remove all the guns?

When people are arrested drunk and in possession of a gun while driving a car they should be disarmed until they are proven innocent. But what they do instead is let them go on their merry way, continuing to own guns and then delay the court proceedings as much as possible.

It's been almost one year and this guy is still drinking, driving and enjoying his inviolable 2nd Amendment rights.

This travesty of justice is outrageous enough, but the hypocrisy of Rep. Todd having been a champion of gun rights and a leader in the field is too much.

A South Jersey pharmacist pulled out a handgun and fired several
shots at a would-be robber as he chased him from his store, authorities
said. Police said it did not appear any shots hit the fleeing holdup
man, who had demanded narcotic painkillers.

“I’m
no hero, but I thought, ‘Either him or I,’” said John Agyemang, who
opened Jolin’s Pharmacy in Winslow about three months ago.

"No hero," is right. In fact this sounds more like criminal behavior than anything else.

You cannot shoot at a fleeing robber no matter what you thought you saw in their fanny pack.

But, unfortunately, even in New Jersey, gun owners get away with criminal acts like this.

Young says that, after more words were exchanged, the man pointed a handgun at the woman. The Bellingham Herald reports the man was still sitting in the truck, about 10 feet from her, and that he then drove off.

The woman called 911.

Police
stopped Palmer a short time later. Young says Palmer acknowledged
confronting the woman but denied pulling a gun. Police say they found
two semiautomatic .45-caliber handguns in his pickup's center console.

Young says Palmer was arrested for investigation of pointing a gun.

I'll bet this guy is anti-woman all the way. He's probably another extreme pro-lifer who can't safely manage his own guns, but he's got lots of advice for women.

I always wonder if gender roles were reversed if these guys would feel the same way. Imagine if women in power tried to tell men what they could do with their bodies or whether they could smoke or drink when they wanted to.

And what about that charge? That should go a long way towards disarming this dangerous character, don't you think? (that was sarcasm, for those of you who need help identifying it)

Friday, September 14, 2012

While officers spoke to Oliver, Lesner said he heard a dog at the side
garage door “barking, growling and smashing in to it.” The door burst
open and a white 100 pound pitbull came running out at full speed.
Lesner wrote that the dog appeared “extremely aggressive, agitated and
wanting to do harm to the officers.” As the dog ran past Lesner —
focused on the officers nearest to Oliver — Lesner shot it three times
in the back and lower back area with an M4 rifle. When the dog attempted
to get back to its feet, “snarling and attempting to bite,” Lesner
wrote that he fired four more rounds in to the animal. The report
doesn’t say if the dog was killed.

At first I thought I'd have another story about overly trigger-happy cops doing their thing, but after reading the description of that scene, I'm with them 100%.

Mississippi State University has not changed the policy prohibiting students from carrying firearms on MSU property, according to Thomas Bourgeois, Dean of Students.

Interest was sparked among Mississippians when House Bill 506 went into
effect July 1, 2011. This amendment states Mississippians who have
obtained an Individual Firearms Permit are allowed to carry a concealed
weapon in previously-banned places such as churches, bars and schools.

Bourgeois made it clear MSU’s campus laws have not been affected by House Bill 506.

“Guns are still illegal for students to carry on campus,” he said. He said this policy applies to MSU faculty and staff as well.

Why is it that if guns are so obviously beneficial and that being able to carry them is a god-given right, the gun advocates cannot even succeed in places like Mississippi and Texas with guns on campus?

This year’s election is going to define the future of our freedom, perhaps more than any other in our history. For gun owners, there are a number of areas crucial to the survival of our Second Amendment rights. That’s
why I took the time to visit with Mitt Romney, the Republican
presidential nominee, to find out precisely where he stands on the
issues of concern to gun owners.

Chris W. Cox: First, let me start with the most basic question of all. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 case McDonald v. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court —by a 5-4 majority— held that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.

Do you agree that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to own and use firearms for all lawful purposes?

Gov. Mitt Romney:
Absolutely, and I was pleased when the Court finally rendered a clear
and concise decision on this critical issue. The Second Amendment is
essential to our free society. I strongly support the right of all
law-abiding Americans to exercise their constitutionally protected right
to own firearms and to use them for lawful purposes, including
self-defense; the protection of family and property; hunting and
recreational shooting.Cox: Obviously, America’s
100 million gun owners are very concerned that their Second Amendment
rights hang in the balance at the U.S. Supreme Court by just one vote.
President Obama’s two nominees to the Court so far —Justices Sotomayor and Kagan—
have a history of anti-gun opinions and activism. And some have
predicted that if Barack Obama is re-elected, he may have the
opportunity to nominate several more justices to the Court.

As
president, if you had the opportunity, what type of individuals would
you nominate to the Supreme Court? And which of the justices currently
serving on the Court would you consider to be the best models of your
judicial philosophy?

Gov. Romney:
Chris, I believe the next president could indeed have the opportunity
to shape the Court for decades to come, and that’s a key reason why the
tens of millions of Americans who support the NRA should support my
candidacy. My view of the Constitution is straightforward: Its words
have meaning. The founders adopted a written constitution for a reason.
They intended to limit the powers of government. The job of a judge is
to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the
Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to
its elected representatives. I believe in the rule of law, and I will
appoint wise, experienced and restrained judges who take seriously their
oath to discharge their duties impartially in accordance with our
Constitution and our laws—not their personal policy preferences.

The rest is as unsurprising as these typically political responses. But it's worth a read.

A United States Merchant Marine Academy professor who was facing termination for a joke about the Colorado movie theater shootings has been given a 45-day suspension instead, along with a requirement for five hours of sensitivity training.

The professor, Gregory F. Sullivan, was showing a film in class this
summer when he said, “If someone with orange hair appears in the corner
of the room, run for the exit” — a reference to the man who is accused of opening fire
at a theater in Aurora, Colo., just days before.

The father of one of
the students in that class was among the 12 killed in the shooting, and
the student left the room upset, according to an internal personnel
document.

Professor Sullivan said he was unaware of the student’s connection to
the shooting, but the document indicated that he should have been aware,
given an e-mail that the school sent out on the subject and the absence
from class of students who attended the funeral.

The decision to suspend the professor instead “was made after careful
review of all information collected as part of the process required
under the federal policy governing academy faculty and staff,” the
academy said this week in a statement.

To me it sounds like a good decision. Termination would have been excessive. What do you think?

A 57-year-old New Orleans man was accidentally shot and fatally
injured by his wife who mistook him for an intruder, police said Monday.

The shooting occurred about 11 a.m. Monday. Police said the
man, named by the Times Picayune newspaper as Charles Williams, died at
the hospital.

No charges were immediately filed in the investigation. The newspaper said the man's 53-year-old wife was not arrested.

Most guns in the home are never used for defense. Some are, some actually save lives. But, the number of those incidents is far overshadowed by the various types of gun mishaps that occur.

This story in which one member of the family kills another is the worse, obviously. But it doesn't end there. When you add this type to all the other accidents and negligence and kids finding guns and theft, what you've got is an obvious conclusion. Guns do more harm than good.

43-year-old John Cunningham of
Jennings is charged with first-degree murder and armed criminal action
in the death of his uncle, 44-year-old Lessie Lowe.

The shooting
happened during an argument early Monday. Police say the men were
arguing over whether the cuts of meat they were planning to cook were
pork steaks or pork chops. Cunningham said they were pork steaks, but
Lowe disagreed.

Police say the argument became physical and the
two had to be separated by someone else in the house. Cunningham then
allegedly retrieved a shotgun and shot Lowe, who died later at a
hospital.

Many of these incidents could be prevented with simple requirements for gun ownership. But, the pro-gun folks won't even consider it. For them, convenience is more important that prevention.

A State Police trooper who shot a woman in a hunting accident is in the clear, at least criminally.

Cheryl Blair was walking her dogs in Norton on New Year’s Eve when
her neighbor, John Bergeron, mistook her dog for a deer and shot her.

Bergeron was charged with negligence but a clerk magistrate has thrown out the case. The State Police determined the shooting was accidental.

The trooper has a permit for the black powder rifle, and was out within the deer hunting season.

The bullet shattered Blair’s hip and she has had to undergo at least
nine surgeries for infections. She has filed a lawsuit against
Bergeron.

To me this sounds like a disgraceful coverup of the cop's negligence. Actually it was double negligence. He thought the dog was a deer and then shot the WOMAN. It's hard to even imagine how something like that could happen.

What's your opinion? Shouldn't hunters be held responsible for adhering to the 4 Rules of Gun Safety like everybody else?

“One shot was fired about 9:40 p.m.,” Cody said by phone. “The
suspect was outside, but she went inside (the bar) when officers
arrived.”

An officer questioned Witkowski, who
initially said she heard a loud boom and pointed northeast toward the
beach, Cody said.

“Officers left and
investigated the area, but didn’t find anything,” Cody said. “When they
returned, they were told she ran into the bathroom (after they left).
Both women (Witkowski and her friend) were sitting at the bar.”

One officer stayed with the women while another went
into the women’s restroom, Cody said. A silver and black .38-caliber
handgun was found stashed in a drawer of the vanity.

A new survey reveals that 54.9 percent of US firearms dealers and
pawnbrokers believe it’s too easy for criminals to get guns in America.

This study, published in the Journal of Urban Health,
provides the first detailed statistical portrait of retail
establishments—gun dealers and pawnbrokers—that sell firearms. It also
details respondents’ personal characteristics and attitudes toward
firearms, including their incentives for and concerns about employment
in the firearms industry.

The pro-gun response?

Wintemute (Garen Wintemute, director of the University of California, Davis, Violence Prevention Research Program and author of the study.) notes that gun lobby tried to interfere with the execution of the survey.

“Major national organizations sought to block this research, even
though it could help protect the public’s health and safety without
undue interference with the legitimate uses of firearms,” Wintemute
says.

“Two days after the first questionnaire was mailed, the National
Shooting Sports Foundation posted notices on its website ‘strongly
discouraging retailers from participating in this study.’ The National
Rifle Association (NRA) quickly followed suit, issuing a similar notice
and e-mailing its entire membership.”

What's your opinion? Why do you think the major gun-rights organizations would attempt to block the study?

We've read about a few cases of Russian Roulette lately. I suppose there's more of it going on than we know about. Is this where it started? Did the idea of enjoying the adrenalin rush of risking death, usually while drinking heavily, start with the great film The Deerhunter? What do you think?

Well, finally there's a solution. We can't help it if ART sometimes influences LIFE, but at least we now have a safe and fun way to do it.

The company Can You Imagine
is selling this Party Roulette toy, a plastic gun that uses balloons as
ammo. The concept is as ingenious as it is simple. First, you fill up a
balloon with water or air, and then you put the balloon in the loop.
All of the gun’s chambers are empty, save for one needle that pokes
forward when you pull the trigger. Spin the cylinder, point it at your head, and then experience
butt-clenching terror as you wait for a “click” or a “pop” to tell you
your fate.

Buying one of these party toys will put you back $18 –
a small price to pay for a game that easily trumps "never ever have I
ever", "quarters", betting on who’s going to throw up first, and other
classic party games.

What's your opinion? With the dissemination of this very inventive toy, will the incidents of Russian roulette deaths decrease?

Fort
Wayne police have identified 24-year-old Traneilous L. Jackson as the
one wielding the gun when shots from a white Ford Crown Victoria
peppered the ambulance and a trailing black Chevrolet Impala while the
vehicles sped down St. Joe Center Road.

Jackson has been charged with aggravated battery, criminal recklessness with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon.

The
man who drove the Crown Victoria, 27-year-old Alfonso Chappell, later
told police that Jackson wanted to avenge his brother, who he claimed
had been stabbed by a man who was inside the ambulance.

Jermaine
J. Loyall, 29, was stabbed just before 3 a.m. with a broken beer
bottle. Police have not said who stabbed him, and court documents make
only a passing mention of the stabbing. Paramedics arrived
at the nightclub, determined Loyall to be in serious condition and
loaded him into the ambulance to take him to Parkview Hospital.

Two of Loyall's family members and a friend then climbed into a black Impala to follow. Soon,
as both the ambulance and Impala passed the Towne House Retirement
Community westbound on St. Joe Center Road, they were approached from
behind by a white Crown Victoria. Shots then began to ring out.

Inside
the Impala, 27-year-old Latasha N. Loyall was hit 10 times all over her
body, according to court documents. Lashanda Conwell, 31, was hit once
in her forearm, and Domonic E. Loyall, 22, was also injured.

The ambulance sustained at least 18 bullet holes through the driver's side of its body and rear. Glass shattered as its windows were shot out, and at least two bullets made it inside the ambulance.

Jeromy
Yardon, a paramedic treating Jermaine Loyall, suffered injuries to his
left arm and abdomen from flying glass, shrapnel and bullet fragments,
according to court documents.

One of the big problems is how easy it is to get a gun in states like Indiana. They allow private sales, they do not require any licensing of gun owners or registration of guns. All this convenience which is supposed to aid the law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights also aids the criminals. ANYONE can get a gun in Indiana.

The solution is obvious. Strict gun control, managed at the federal level.

In the aftermath of last month’s rampage killing at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, some members of the religion are considering arming themselves in order to defend against future attacks.

On August 5, Wade Michael Page
burst into the temple in suburban Milwaukee and opened fire, killing
six before police arrived on the scene.

While the Sikh religion is known for its commitment to peace and
non-violence, some of its members have said enough is enough in the wake
of the recent shooting. Some Sikhs are seeking to purchase firearms in order to avoid a repeat of the temple massacre.

“I think that being able to legally obtain and carry a gun is the
best thing any Sikh can do, especially after 9/11 where there have been
over 800 documented cases of harassment and violence against us.”

Sikhs are required by the religion to carry a ceremonial knife at all
times for self-defense.

But, there's only one problem, I mean aside from the fact that it probably wouldn't help anyway and in all likelihood would make matters worse.

Sikhs or any other citizens in Wisconsin who wish to arm themselves will enjoy relatively lax gun restrictions. According to the National Rifle Association, there is no permitting, licensing or registration required to buy or own a handgun, rifle or shotgun.

You see, places like Wisconsin make no attempt to ensure that gun owners are qualified. This is a terrible mistake. It allows many unfit people to own guns legally.

He told the Daily Mail's Live magazine:
"America is a country founded on guns. It's in our DNA. It's very
strange but I feel better having a gun. I really do. I don't feel safe, I
don't feel the house is completely safe, if I don't have one hidden
somewhere.

"That's my thinking, right or wrong."

Wrong, Brad. First of all "America" is not a country. The United States is a country, Canada is a country, Mexico is a country, and none of them was founded on guns. That's the most ridiculous gun-nut talk possible. It's as bad as saying the Holocaust was caused by disarming the Jews.

Secondly, your house is less safe with a gun "hidden somewhere," especially with all those kids.

Alabama
is a regular feature on the lower end of well-being rankings in the
U.S. (see ourHealthiest States in America or the Most Sinful States in
America for starters), and that unfortunately doesn't change when
talking about children. Alabama is one of the states with the lowest
reading scores (with only 31% of fourth-graders reading at proficient
levels).

A teenager is recovering after police say he shot himself in the penis and testicle while cleaning a gun he just bought.

Police say 18-year-old Michael Smeriglio first lied to police saying
someone shot him while he was walking down the street. After being
questioned by police he admitted to accidentally doing it himself.

Doctors say the bullet went through his penis, his left testicle and then lodged itself in his thigh.

Smeriglio told police he bought the gun last month at a party.

I suppose that means that 18-year-olds are allowed to buy and own guns legally in Florida. Is it like that everywhere?

This young man is very lucky he wasn't charged with a crime. Normally when you lie to the cops that's what happened. They must have felt sorry for him and figured he's suffered enough.

Reading police
detectives are investigating an accidental shooting that wounded a Berks
County deputy sheriff Monday morning in a courthouse office.

Police said Deputy John Parsons suffered a leg wound in the accident,
which happened about 9:45 in the sheriff's warrants division office on
the 17th floor.

"We're not sure, but it sounds like the weapon or the holster malfunctioned," Sheriff Eric J. Weaknecht said.

In a prepared statement Weaknecht released later in the day he said the
training exercise involved determining if a new department-issued
holster was susceptible to a suspect reaching inside the holster and
pulling the trigger.

"The objective of the training exercise was to prevent a scenario such
as this from happening," Weaknecht said. "During the training process,
another sheriff's deputy was able to reach over and grab Deputy Parson's
weapon, at which time Deputy Parson's gun accidentally discharged.

"Both deputies unloaded their weapons prior to the training exercise, a department requirement."

Both Parsons and the other deputy involved in the accident are certified firearms instructors, Weaknecht said.

The old gun-must-have-malfunctioned excuse is always a laugh.

What's your opinion? Isn't it hard to believe that a trained firearms instructor can be this negligent? That's what I think.

"If people want to have guns, that's their thing," he says, walking to his Center City rowhouse on Sunday.

What he is against, he says, are irresponsible gun-owners, people who
use guns to kill or injure others, and "straw purchasers" - people who
buy guns legally for the benefit of criminals.

CeaseFirePA's website calls it "a statewide coalition of survivors
and citizens who are dedicated to taking a stand against gun violence."

Nacheman fights for laws that would require, for instance, the timely
reporting of lost or stolen firearms. He organizes community members to
attend a defendant's sentencing hearing, and calls mayors, faith
leaders or town-watch members on gun-related bills.

What could be more reasonable than that? No wonder gun-rights activists have to resort to half-truths and outright lies when arguing with guys like this.

A grandfather is feeling guilty after he accidentally shot his
three-year-old granddaughter. The man says he was aiming at a stray cat
but the bullet hit the girl instead.

Gary Van Ness admits he shot the girl as she stood behind his home
with her father. He says the neighborhood is overrun with strays. And,
some have even snuck into his home.

“The cats are brave enough to come in there and got him a couple of loaves of bread,” he said.

Van Ness noticed a cat by his shed and grabbed his .22 caliber shot-gun and aimed. “I took the opportunity to shoot it,” he said.

He didn’t know his son and granddaughter were in the same area. The bullet went right through Brianna’s leg.

Investigators consider the shooting to be an
accident and no charges are expected.

The reason this is outrageous is that with the same negligent action he could have killed her or someone else. In Texas, though, if you're a white old man and do something stupid with a gun, you're very likely to get off.

Good movie which clearly depicts the mistake homeowners can make when faced with a break in. Whether you use a gun or a baseball bat, chasing the thief outside and striking him while he's running away is a mistake. But this first scene shows how easily it can happen.

The police in New York City
They chased a boy right through the park
In a case of mistaken identity
They put a bullet through his heart

Heartbreakers with your forty four
I wanna tear your world apart
You heart breaker with your forty four
I wanna tear your world a part

A ten year old girl on a street corner
Sticking needles in her arm
She died in the dirt of an alleyway
Her mother said she had no chance, no chance
Heartbreaker, heartbreaker
She stuck the pins right in her heart
Heartbreaker, a pain maker
Stole the love right out of you heart

A police officer who fatally shot a 15-year-old Arkansas boy was
charged with felony manslaughter Friday after investigators determined
his account of the incident didn't match up with evidence at the scene,
Little Rock police said.

Officer Josh Hastings, who has a history of disciplinary issues with
his department, shot Bobby Moore Jr. while responding to a suspicious
persons call at an apartment complex on Aug. 12.

Hastings claimed the
car Moore was driving was heading toward him, prompting him to fire
through its windshield, but the police chief said evidence shows the car
was either moving in reverse or stopped several feet away from Hastings
when he fired.

"I have reviewed this matter and have concluded that the incident did
not occur in the manner represented by the officer and that the use of
deadly force did not conform to departmental orders," Little Rock Police
Chief Stuart Thomas said, adding that prosecutors agreed "the use of
deadly force was not justified."

The 26-year-old officer, who had been suspended six times in five
years prior to the August shooting, was booked into jail Friday but
later released on $15,000 bond. The charge carries a maximum penalty of
10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The old "car was coming at me" trick. We've heard that one before, in fact we've seen it work as justification for police shootings. I've always had my doubts.

One interesting thing about this cop is his previous problems were not of the trigger-happy variety. Remember Officer Peters from Scottsdale, well Hastings sounds like a different type, general fuck-up who should have been disarmed long before, but I guess there wasn't really cause enough for that.

A Louisville man accused of opening fire at a homeowners association
meeting, killing one and critically wounding another, was ordered held
on a $1 million bond Saturday at an initial court hearing where a
prosecutor called him “the epitome of danger to the community.”

A not guilty plea was entered on behalf of 55-year-old Mahmoud
Yousef Hindi to charges of murder, assault and wanton endangerment in
the Thursday evening shooting at a church.

Just another of the daily stories we read about in which lawful gun owners go wrong. What would have prevented this, the pro-gun crowd loves to ask.

Well, it's impossible to know what could have prevented this specific act of violence. But one thing for sure is, a general tightening of gun laws and a raising of the bar as to who can own guns would prevent some of these acts.

Copied in its entirety from an e-mail I received from our frequent commenter Frail Liberty:

You continue to try to make a case that there should be
zero tolerance for gun-owners who negligently discharge their weapon.
You cited Jeff Coopers Gun safety rules in one post presumably as
evidence to support your zero tolerance policy. You refuse to even
consider analogies of other irresponsible behavior that results in many
times more injury and death and whether or not other zero tolerance
rules would be appropriate.

So, I thought perhaps a brief primer on the 4 gun rules
may be in order to help put thing into perspective. This is not an
effort to excuse any negligent discharge. It is, however, intended to
show that not all ND's are equal and to highlight just one reason why
your dream of instant stripping of all gun-rights for any infraction is
just a silly, nonsensical wet-dream fantasy.

The four rules are (the most common version):

All guns are always loaded.

Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target.

Identify your target, and what is behind it.

The
first three rules deal with safe gun handling until the point in which
you are ready to fire. The fourth rule deals with collateral damage
when firing - it really does not come into play for safe gun handling
when not intending to fire. So for the purposes of this discussion, we
will cover the first three rules.

The thing about these rules is that they are not
universally absolute. Now that I threw that bomb our there for you - I
anticipate you, or one of your cronies, will take it out of context. So
please, let me explain.

For the purposes of general gun handling (i.e.
nearly all the time) they are 100 percent absolute. But, there are
times in which the rules must be modified in letter but not violated in
spirit. Several examples include:

All guns are always loaded: Well, this is true -
except that every-time a gun is disassembled for cleaning, this rule
must be modified to become "All guns are always loaded - until proven
otherwise". (Actually, this modification is written as the rule in some
places.) We check and double check our guns to ensure they are not
loaded so that they can be disassembled and cleaned. But, the other
rules are strictly obeyed even while modifying this one.

Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not
willing to destroy: You know those cool shoulder holsters that you see
detectives use on TV? Did you know that the muzzle of their loaded gun
is nearly horizontal and thus constantly pointed directly at people
everywhere they go? Is this a violation of the four rules? By the
letter, yes. But they are not handling it at the time. The trigger is
covered as thus it is impossible for anything, including fingers, to be
in the trigger guard. So in spirit it is not considered a violation. But
extra care has to be used when drawing the weapon as it is impossible
not to sweep the area during the draw.

Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights
are on the target: If only this rule were religiously followed, the
number of ND's would shrink to a mere fraction of current levels. And
yet, this is one of the rules that frequently must be modified in the
course of normal gun care and training. After cleaning, the re-assembly
of some guns require the trigger to be pulled to reset the hammer
or striker mechanism. Also, repeated dry-firing (or using a snap cap)
is an excellent tool used by competition shooters and others wanting to
become familiar with particular trigger feel on a gun. So, after
verifying (many of us do this twice) that a gun is unloaded and while
obeying the other rules, we will repeatedly cycle the trigger mechanism.

But none of these instances violate the spirit of
the rules, and in fact are necessary activity specific modifications of
the rules.

So, why do I highlight all of this?
The point is that in order to have an ND inflict injury to anyone - all
three of the rules must be simultaneously broken. I would never excuse
any violation of the rules - but the reason that all three are important
is that we are, in fact, human beings. Mistakes WILL happen. Just
like they do when we humans drive 4,000 pound vehicles on the road. We
miss stop signs and red lights and turn in front of oncoming traffic and
veer on the roads and follow to close behind another mistake prone
human driver. Human error is a part of the human experience. The three
rules are designed, not only to prevent ND's when properly followed, but
to minimize damage when a mistake causes one (or even two) of them to
be violated.

If 1 and 2 are broken no shot is fired because no finger is on the trigger.

If 2
and 3 are broken (assuming the rule 1 modification is accepted and the
gun is verified unloaded) no shot is fired because there is no
ammunition.

If 1 and 3 are broken a shot might be fired (an ND to be sure), but
no one is harmed because the gun was pointed in a safe direction.

In
fact, while nearly all ND's could be prevented by being strict about
rule 3 - rule 2 is, in my opinion, is the more critical rule. If it were
followed religiously - no one would ever be hurt by an ND. And yet it
is the one that, when violated by itself, never results in a call to
police and therefore no opportunity to apply your draconian dream. So
you would be unable to consistently punish the most flagrant violators.

Let me close by highlighting a way in which silly
gun-control laws and regulations force diligent gun owners
to actually break the rules - on a daily basis. I work at university and
am, by law and university policy, prohibited from carrying my gun into
the buildings in which I work. So, every day, I must disarm when I
arrive at work and rearm as I depart. In order to make it difficult for
my gun to be stolen from car while at work, I lock it in a Nanovault gun
vault secured by cable to the underside of the passenger seat. So while
parked, I un-holster the weapon and lay it horizontally in the case,
close the lid, lock it, and slide it under the seat.

During this procedure, I treat the weapon as if it were loaded,
because it is - and I keep my finger WAY off of the trigger. But, I
cannot keep it pointed in a completely safe direction. It has to
be horizontal to go into the vault. The best I can do is keep it pointed
in "as safe a direction as possible". Depending upon where I am parked
and who is around, sometimes (most of the time) that is toward my engine
block while other times it is toward the passenger door where it
would strike other parked cars.

And all of this must be done because I cross an
arbitrary boundary to perform my role at work. I go to off campus events
armed with the same students that I cannot be armed around while
working with them. And thus, at least 10 times a week, I am forced to
bend the critical rules of gun safety in order to stay
in compliance with the law. Will I have an ND because of this? No. But
do these laws mitigate any real risk on campus? No - they just force me
to engage in slightly riskier behavior for no real benefit.

After a couple of overtures by e-mail, I'm still not sure what his point it. When I asked if it was that his gun-free zone at work was a bad thing, he just repeated the paragraph beginning with "So, why do I highlight all of this?"

It seems to me that, as he rightly points out, it takes the violation of 3 of the 4 Rules simultaneously to have a serious accident, my "zero tolerance" policy makes even more sense.

Now, the words "zero tolerance" are loaded with negative connotations. The fact is I'm very tolerant. Often I feel that a jail sentence for an act of gun negligence, even when someone dies, is excessive. I do however feel that the loss of gun rights has to be strictly upheld.

What's your opinion? What do you think Frail Liberty is getting at with that lengthy message?

A Prescott Valley man was flown to a Phoenix hospital early Thursday after he accidentally shot himself in the leg.

"A
64-year-old man said he was sleeping with his handgun under his
pillow," Prescott Valley Police Officer Paul Dunn said. "When he woke up
and tried to put the gun away, the gun accidentally discharged into his
knee."

Keeping a "gun under the pillow" has got to be about the stupidest thing a gun owner could do. It's hard to be more irresponsible than that, and for what? Do they think it gives them quicker access?

The other incredibly stupid thing, in spite of the wording of the story, is shooting oneself in the leg. The gun didn't just "discharge" by itself. As our friend Frail Liberty explained, at least three of the 4 Rules had to be violated simultaneously for this to happen.

What's your opinion? Would disqualifying a man like this from owning firearms make things better or worse? Would his friends and neighbors be better off or not?

A New Philadelphia-area man will spend the next year in prison for the
accidental shooting death of Max McGuire on Sept. 19, 2011.

Seth M. Smith, 21, was sentenced during
an emotional hearing Thursday in Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court.

A county grand jury indicted Smith on one count of reckless homicide
with a gun specification. In July, he changed his plea to no contest and
was found guilty by Judge Elizabeth Lehigh Thomakos.

Investigators said McGuire was shot once at close range with a
high-powered rifle he owned. Smith had not checked to see if the rifle
was loaded before he pulled the trigger.

McGuire, 23, died after being
shot in the head, according to county Coroner Dr. James Hubert.

New Philadelphia police have said it appeared “that this was a
nonintentional shooting” that occurred while several people were at
McGuire’s residence.

During the hearing, Smith emotionally repeated how sorry he is. He
didn’t explain the details of what happened that night. He indicated he
was aware there would be punishment and he was willing to accept what
the judge decided, Ernest said. Six people appeared on behalf of Smith.

Justice would have been better served if the entire prison sentence had been suspended. I don't see what good it does putting a guy who is obviously repentant in jail.

Yet, this is a better outcome than the many "accidents" we see that go unpunished.